People v. Eaton CA6

Filed 5/7/25 P. v. Eaton CA6 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H050146 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 18CR07956)

v.

MICHAEL SHANE EATON,

Defendant and Appellant.

This case is before us for a second time, after transfer from the California Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of that court’s opinion in People v. McCune (2024) 16 Cal.5th 980 (McCune). Defendant Michael Shane Eaton challenges an order for victim restitution fixing the amount only after his probation had expired. After we filed our original opinion affirming the order, the California Supreme Court granted review but deferred briefing pending its decision in McCune. Having considered McCune and entertained further briefing and argument, will again affirm the order. I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS Defendant was charged with felony vandalism (Pen. Code § 594, subd. (a); unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code) and misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)) based on damaging the doors of a parked vehicle. (We omit the details of the offense as they are not relevant to the analysis and disposition of the appeal.) After he admitted the vandalism charge, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years commencing in

February 2019. As a term of probation, the court ordered defendant to pay restitution to the vandalism victim in an amount to be determined later. The court found defendant to be in violation of probation in May 2019, December 2019, and December 2020. In each instance, probation was reinstated and the court set a new projected probation termination date. Defendant was also twice found incompetent. Criminal proceedings were suspended in July 2019 and resumed in October 2019; they were again suspended in April 2021 and resumed in December 2021 after commitment and treatment at the Department of State Hospitals. The following month, defendant admitted a violation of probation based on a new conviction; the court reinstated probation and credited defendant with 272 days in custody. At the same hearing, the court reduced the term of probation to two years based on Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess. [amending former section 1203.1, subdivision (a) to reduce the maximum felony probation term to two years, with certain exceptions not applicable here]), and the parties acknowledged that the probation department would calculate the new expiration date. On March 17, 2022, the prosecution filed a request to calendar the case for a restitution hearing, which the court set for May 9. On March 28 the prosecution notified defendant in writing of the May 9 restitution hearing. Attached to the notice was the victim’s restitution request form dated March 29, 2021 along with supporting documentation, including a January 2019 estimate from an auto body shop for repairs to the victim’s vehicle. Counsel appeared at the hearing on May 9, 2022, and the court continued the matter to determine if probation had expired. At the next hearing on May 26 the probation officer informed the court that defendant’s probation expired on March 23, 2022, per Assembly Bill No. 1950. The court then requested briefing on whether it had jurisdiction to determine the restitution amount, given that defendant’s probation had expired two months earlier. 2